Losing In The Long Run
Posted on May 28th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
To reduce her full Berkley [sic] remarks to an inoffensive paean to experience and the limits of impartiality strikes me less as a fair-minded reading than an exercise in wishful thinking. ~Jim Antle
Jim must be one of the few who has looked at her full remarks and still concluded that there was something deeply wrong with them. Rod came to quite a different conclusion after reading the entire speech, but no matter. Readers can judge for themselves whether they think the speech is an exercise in “racialist and separatist” rhetoric, or whether it is something rather more benign. In any case, Jim wants to stress not so much what she said, but where she said it and to whom. That’s fine as far as it goes, but if the tables were turned my guess is that conservatives would see this not so much as contextualization as an attempt to prove guilt by association.
I would go farther and say that I think she wasn’t just making an “inoffensive paean to experience.” Horror of horrors, she was expressing pride in her particular identity, much as many conservatives claim they wish they could do more freely with respect to theirs without being called racist or racialist or some other derisive label. What is their solution? To call Sotomayor by a name that they usually regard as a bludgeon unfairly used against them all the time. Not only will this gambit fail in the immediate confirmation battle, but it will ensure that the limits of expression become even more constricting and stifling. This is what I don’t understand: why would conservatives want to make it easier to categorize innocuous statements as racist and/or racialist? There is virtually no social policy debate in which matters of race are not involved to some degree, and many, if not most, conservative social policy views already have to meet a rather exacting standard to avoid such charges. Why make that standard even more demanding and impossible to meet? Why water down the definition of racialist such that it seems to include any and all acknowledgment of the significance of these differences? How well do you suppose conservative arguments in various policy debates will fare in the future if even Sotomayor’s unremarkable Berkeley speech must be described as racialist? Instead of giving more benefit of the doubt to all and loosening the conventional strictures on expression, we hear instead the call to clamp down even more obsessively on everyone. This is the most hare-brained application of “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” I think I have ever seen.
The most significant part of her speech from eight years ago has scarcely been discussed at all, which is her acknowledgment that neutrality and objectivity do not exist. One should strive to minimize the role of bias, but it is ineradicable. More than that, it sometimes serves a valuable social function–surely, students of Burke can understand this. The people who actually find this shocking or dangerous reveal themselves as believers in pleasant fictions left over from the 18th and 19th centuries. Those who understand that everyone is from somewhere specific, that everyone is part of a particular tradition, heir to a certain background and shaped by the places where he has lived and the experiences in those places, and that universal Man does not exist anywhere in the world, are not troubled by this. For us, it is a simple restatement of the obvious. The idea that where we come from matters deeply and defines who we are is hardly one that conservatives should find outrageous.
Update: Matthew Miller has an interesting response:
Larison is undoubtedly right that we can’t ever be entirely separated from our background; but if there’s any sphere of government where we simply must try, the judiciary is it. Sonia Sotamayor isn’t a racist. She simply doesn’t understand that she’s meant to be a bulwark against the tyranny of caprice, not an advocate for it. That is reason enough to oppose her confirmation without dredging up the racism charge. After all, to paraphrase John Adams, we ought to be a nation of laws and not of wise latina women.
Second Update: Jim adds in a follow-up post:
One other point about Sotomayor’s comment: it illustrates the extent to which the logic of racial/ethnic identity politics can cause people to say or think things they would clearly recognize as racist in other contexts. If changing the words “Latina” and “white man” around would change your view of the sentence, then perhaps it is time to examine some of your assumptions.
I suppose it would be, but then the point here surely ought to be that the statement is not racist no matter which way you phrase it. It might be any number of things, not all of them necessarily good, but it isn’t that. In this case, reversing the terms doesn’t change this about the sentence, so why are conservatives reading it as they assume (perhaps wrongly) that Sotomayor would read the reverse? Indeed, wouldn’t they say that she would be wrong to read the reverse in the way that they are currently reading her statement? Doesn’t that drive home how futile and ridiculous this line of attack is?
Filed under: politics
One should strive to minimize the role of bias, but it is ineradicable.
That is true. The Jews on the court have always shown they are ethnically biased but I wouldn’t expect neocons to admit it. There is no point in pretending that people are not motivated almost entirely by a desire to enhance their own group’s ethnic interests and to stick it to rival groups.
Unfortunately, and I mean no disrespect, you Anglo-Americans aren’t very worldly. You are so good dressing everything up in idealism that you’ve managed to convince your own deracinated tribe – though no others – that ethnicity is irrelevant, even when it is obvious to non-Anglo-Americans that it is the primary motivating factor behind most actions.
Daniel, when hypocrisy is all but your middle name (not you, I refer to the canardists on the right-wing team), then there is no conflict in calling something outrageous when a tribe other than your own does it, and completely reasonable when the speaker is a member in good standing of your tribe. It really isn’t more complicated than that.
Jake
Having read the speech myself, I have to side with Jim. The speech makes plain Sotomayor’s view that one’s race and gender are critical to any decision (not just factors). Moreover, her controversial “wise Latina” crack is a rather racist insult to whites. Her heritage is “rich”; the other heritage…not so much.
I agree that this alone should not disqualify her, but it does demand a bit of clarification. When exactly will her “rich heritage” become a factor? Should she recuse herself in cases involving Hispanics?
Let me reproduce the rest of Antle’s paragraph you quoted:
But in any event, her remarks should not be divorced from the context in which they were delivered: she was speaking to a multiculturalist audience as a represenative of a judicial liberalism inclined toward group rights. It is appropriate to use her nomination as an occasion to debate that conception of justice.
Daniel again:
Instead of giving more benefit of the doubt to all and loosening the conventional strictures on expression, we hear instead the call to clamp down even more obsessively on everyone.
Well, Daniel, the problem is that it’s not clear where the “…loosening [of] conventional strictures on expression…” will occur. All that will happen here is what happens before: whites who make such statements are crucified while non-whites are excused and pardoned. Show me the mechanism by which this “loosening” takes place, and I’ll happily sign on.
Goodness, let’s think about this a bit more. Where does she say that race and gender are “critical” to judging? She is saying that they will unavoidably influence judging, because they necessarily inform the judge’s perspective. I also see quite a few people ignoring the part of the “wise Latina” remark in which she expresses a hope. She does not make a statement of supremacy or superior wisdom, yet she is being read by quite a few people as if she said this. If this is what passes for a racist insult now, we have really defined racism down as low as it can go. I don’t see how one escapes from hyper-sensitivity to racial slights by cultivating an even more exquisite sensitivity to them.
Some people have complained that my counterexample with the Catholic or the pious Christian is a bad one because I have replaced an ethnic or racial identity with a religious one. Of course, that was part of the exercise. Conservatives are much more comfortable with identity politics when it has to do with religious affiliations, and indeed most see nothing wrong with it in that case. Most everyone is likely to think that his heritage is richer than that of others, because that is the heritage that he knows.
One way that you do not loosen strictures on expression is by reinforcing and tightening them in retaliation for their imposition on you. If the problem with Sotomayor is that she is a judicial liberal, as Jim puts it, make *that* the center of the case against her and then proceed to show this. This talk of her alleged racialism is a silly sideshow, and one that is steadily destroying whatever credibility conservatives have left.
Sorry about the confused order of the comments. I’m not sure why that has happened. For the record, I was responding to Derek’s comment.
Derek, she didn’t even say half the things you attribute to her, and the other half were qualified by other statements during the speech.
Also uhm the comments are all out of order here.
All that will happen here is what happens before: whites who make such statements are crucified while non-whites are excused and pardoned.
Well, there’s a couple differences here:
1) When whites talk to whites about culture, identity, heritage, country, tradition, etc, it basically goes unsaid that they’re talking primarily about white culture, white identity, etc, because we live in a primarily white country. I, for instance, am white. I live in a city that’s very white. My teachers growing up were mostly white. The professors at my college today are mostly white. Most of the authors I read are white. Much of the music I listen to is made by white people. Most of the movies and television programs I enjoy are written by white people and feature white actors. Most of my friends are white. There’s also not a whole lot in my life that makes me particularly conscious of my whiteness; it’s just something that is. On the other hand, if I were a minority, I imagine I’d encounter quite a lot to make me away of that fact, and I imagine that in discussions of culture and experience I would have to make a distinction between the mostly white culture that exists around me and the smaller ethnic culture closest to me. As a white person, I can talk about these things without explicitly identifying “my” culture as “white” culture because it’s just assumed to be the case; minorities, on the other hand, have no choice but to be explicit if they want to be clear.
2) We have a lower tolerance for white racism because white racism in this country was responsible for the enslavement, torture, rape, murder, etc, of millions.
Matt D and Daniel:
From Sotomayor’s speech:
The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench.
Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives – no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.
I read that as saying race and gender are critical to a judge’s decision-making process. If you want to call it “unavoidably influenceing the process,” fine. It’s a distinction without much difference.
Of course, as Matt notes, she tosses out exceptions, like Clarence Thomas, but her general rule is pretty clear, and she says it will show up with a greater proportion of minorities and women on the bench. In a way, it’s a very Saileresque point, I suppose. The problem with this isn’t the point, but the way the point is being made. Antle actually seemed to be grasping for the same point Miller did, really, when he pointed to the circumstances surrounding the speech..
Daniel writes:
I also see quite a few people ignoring the part of the “wise Latina†remark in which she expresses a hope. She does not make a statement of supremacy or superior wisdom, yet she is being read by quite a few people as if she said this.
Let’s look at the comment again:
Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
That reads like a mother telling an older child, “I would hope you’d know better than your five-year-old brother not do such-and-such…” I grant it’s not a pronouncement from a Grand Kleagle, but there is an assumption of racial superiority involved, that white males don’t live “rich” lives (They’re not vibrant either, too, probably).
Alone it shouldn’t disqualify her under normal circumstances, but the left has changed the circumstances. If they want to change the environment, let them. Until then. they should be called on their hypocrisy.
One way that you do not loosen strictures on expression is by reinforcing and tightening them in retaliation for their imposition on you.
Then you’re relying on the kindness of your adversaries. The only way to get people to change bad behaviors is by disincentivizing it. Make it hurt. I’d prefer another path, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
The speech, while subject to criticism, is rather measured. Yes, there’s the appeal to ethnic identity, and a”Hispanic” or “Latino” identity is rather artificial, as the speech itself shows–Judge Sotomayor never saw a taco until college.
Once America opted for mass immigration and conquests such as Puerto Rico, her society of many sects and voluntary associations could not have prevented ethnic organizations from forming and seeking a place in the sun (or a share of the spoils). Being “Hispanic” does not automatically incline one to much of anything in the judicial world–harshness vs. mercy to criminal defendants, deference to or skepticism of executive power, and so forth.
Moreover, as much as the natter of diversocrats puts my teeth on edge, when it comes to public office, “balanced tickets” are a tradition. At this point, white Protestant men could probably complain they’re down to one 89-year-old on the Court. The world of politics is different from large companies, universities and the civil service, which ought to be color- and ethnicity-blind.
Daniel’s right. The Sotomayor battle needs to be fought out on some ground other than the claim she’s a racist.
Daniel, I think you’re assigning a bit too much forethought to Sotomeyer’s critics. Claims of “political correctness” or “reverse racism” or whatever have almost always been used primarily as bludgeons from those who have power to avoid discussions with those who do not in social settings, and in political settings, the terms exist primarily to lambast Democrats. Since the President has a D after his name, the terms are busted out – just like Roe v Wade panics hit the Democrats when the President has an R after his name.
Those who attempt to go a little deeper turn the whole exercise into a national referendum on confirmation bias, as if the Supreme Court nominee is actually the United States’ Political Philosophy Professor, who must agree with writer’s assumptions about discussions in the political sphere.
And whites do make claims about the wisdom of their ethnicity and social class. They tend to come in paeans to “Middle America” and “old-fashioned American values” and such, or claims that the American political system was designed miraculously by the magical Founders who had wisdom far beyond their time. Given time (and power) and I’m sure the ethnic minorities in the country can come up with their own code words for their celebration.
That reads like a mother telling an older child, “I would hope you’d know better than your five-year-old brother not do such-and-such…†I grant it’s not a pronouncement from a Grand Kleagle, but there is an assumption of racial superiority involved, that white males don’t live “rich†lives (They’re not vibrant either, too, probably).
If you read the actual piece, it’s pretty clear that there’s no assertion of racial superiority; she’s discussing how the courts have historically dealt with the issue of minority and women’s rights and suggesting that an actual female minority might have some insight that would lead to better judgments in those cases. I’m not sure why that’s so controversial–I have a hard time believing that she’s the first nominee to have ever suggested that she has experience which might enable her to make better decisions in a certain area.
I’ll also note that there seems to be a willful conflation in some circles between identity and experience. A lot of you would have us believe that she’s asserting a superiority of her identity (Latina), when in actuality she’s suggesting that the experiences which are a product of that identity in this era are unique and valuable.
With very few honorable exceptions, those least troubled by racism are those most troubled by reverse racism. Among them are those here who are immune to Daniel’s wise counsel and oblivious to his irresistible logic.
For what it’s worth, these comments are being posted out of chronological order.
By the way, I am totally baffled as to how these comments are being threaded. Did Wordpress change something?
There was some glitch in the system after Derek posted his comment and before I wrote my first response. Somehow the second and third comments in the thread disappeared and were then added back in. My apologies for the confusion. It shouldn’t keep happening in future posts. I believe it is a function of the later time-stamps that have been given to these comments.
I find the controversy around Sotomayor’s actual comments confected and tedious. I can’t read her statements and see them as meaningfully racist. In her most ‘offensive’ remark the comparison is between a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences” and a “white male who hasn’t lived that life”. She neither suggests nor implies that all Latina women are wise with rich experiences, nor does she compare her wise Latina woman with a wise white man – the substance of the point is that wise people with experience make better judges, hardly controversial unless you’re invested in the whole Palin-folk wisdom view of governance.
But I’m much more interested in the terms of debate that you have established in this discussion. I am attracted to the idea that “neutrality and objectivity do not exist” and that whilst “[o]ne should strive to minimize the role of bias … it is ineradicable”. One way of thinking about this idea that I have been exploring is the view that racism is inevitable and necessary (hear me out!) in that unacceptable racism is only an extension of the kinds of instincts that we rely upon in forming any judgement. At its furthest extension, it seems to me that the business of decrying racism must lead to a rejection of all judgement by appearance – yet I would argue that judging things by appearance is an essential part of human interaction. In a sense, I want to see all judgements on a scale and then have society, both officially through the law, and unofficially through cultural norms, delineate what is and is not acceptable (and I lean towards the latter form of regulation). Part of the reason I raise this here is that I suspect there are people on this blog with a better understanding of the intellectual history of this kind of idea. So let me know if I’m merely saying something that has been said many times before and many times more eloquently.
One way of thinking about this idea that I have been exploring is the view that racism is inevitable and necessary (hear me out!) in that unacceptable racism is only an extension of the kinds of instincts that we rely upon in forming any judgement.
I agree that some degree of racism is inevitable in that we are all products of our environment and our environments do tend to be segregated even today. However, I would hope you understand that when you talk about racism, you’re not just talking about someone’s more or less benign distaste for being around people of a different race– you’re talking about someone’s desire to condemn those with different skin tones to permanent status as second class citizens, to deny them participation in the political process, to abuse them, enslave them, or even eradicate them.
yet I would argue that judging things by appearance is an essential part of human interaction.
Well, okay. On a small scale, sure. Broaden it to the entire nation with the full apparatus of government and industry and it’s very clear what racism means and entails, but much less clear how that forms “an essential part of human interaction.”
Matt D – I see what your saying, which is part of the reason why I put my idea so tentatively – I’m still working through the consequences of this approach to race. Nonetheless, I think you could argue that your “benign distaste” and “desire to condemn” are both frequently referred to as racism in contemporary society (this, incidentally reflects what Daniel was saying in his follow-up post: “the word racist has been so overused and abused over the years that it is fast approaching the status of the word fascist to mean “someone or something I don’t like.†It has become one of a few catch-all labels used to express contempt, and it has become less of a descriptive term and more of a pejorative one”). Which is precisely why I am interested in attempting to find a (to borrow Daniel’s term again) position with greater nuance. Either we need to draw much firmer and clearer lines with regard to racism, such that “benign distaste” is not racist provided it does not spill over into active prejudice. Or, in my speculative approach, we accept that all these things are racist but with the corollary that there exist more and less harmful and offensive kinds of racism, only some of which should be illegal etc. My hope for this approach is that by forcing us to engage with degrees of racism we might have a more informed and sensible debate about the whole subject. The worst kind of racists would no longer be able to hide behind the idea of ‘political correctness gone mad’ whilst at the other end of the spectrum we would see less of the “catch-all to express contempt” which has devalued the term. Just to clarify, I think all these kinds of racism should be avoided; I just want to distinguish more clearly between those that are harmful to a free and fair society and those that are merely ignorant. Perhaps it is impossible to make this distinction clearly. But I think it is a worthwhile exercise to attempt.
I’m not sure why that’s so controversial–I have a hard time believing that she’s the first nominee to have ever suggested that she has experience which might enable her to make better decisions in a certain area.
It’s controversial because if a white had given an equally “nuanced” speech to a conservative audience (dare I say at a southern university!), his career would be reduced to a joke on late night television. People naturally don’t like double standards. It raises hackles. So we should expose it. If the left is willing to swallow this and defend it, great. We’ll keep that in mind next time they go after Sailer.
G.O.M. wrote
The Sotomayor battle needs to be fought out on some ground other than the claim she’s a racist.
Fine, but we don’t need to ignore the speech either. You can have different lines of attack. Some attention should be paid to this speech, and Sotomayor and her defenders should point out why it’s acceptable for her to say things that would get a white man in trouble.
Allan wrote:
With very few honorable exceptions, those least troubled by racism are those most troubled by reverse racism.
Yes, Allan, because there are both legal social remedies to white racism. There’s almost none when it works the other way. In fact, discrimination against whites is embedded into our legal structure.
Is there an element of self-interest involved? Hell, yes. So what? If you want to play the selfless, status-seeking SWPL that’s your call, but don’t expect me to be impressed.
And yet, Derek, tall white men with great hair continue to rule this nation. Pardon me while I cry into my beer over all the discrimination levied against the poor, poor, disadvantaged wasps. Not to mention the GOP.
With that last line you just joined the WATB gooper chorus.
Sad. Just sad.
Jake
Without delving too deeply into the racial debate….which I consider, frankly, moronic….I hope that I may be forgiven for pointing out Andy McCarthy’s extremely weird diatribe at NRO as to what Republicans can or cannot tolerate in a Supreme Ct Justice. Why are we even discussing this? There are no votes to stop her. It is a non-controversy, a dead issue. Who cares what McCarthy thinks? Who cares what Newt thinks?g
What makes it even crazier are the unhinged comments by Sean Hannity et al to the effect that she is some nutso leftist Judge….would that it were so, I was hoping against hope that he would pick Lessig. in spite of his paper trail….but the fact is that her judicial record appears to be utterly prosaic. Of course, so id Souter’s.
I think it’s absurd to say that if the situation were reversed, meaning there were no white males on the Supreme Court, and a white male said something similar to Sotomayor’s remarks, that he would be condemned for it. Sotomayor “gets away” with these remarks, not because the media is prejudiced or has a double standard, but because there’s never been a Latino woman on the court, so her claim to wisdom from this section of an unrepresented minority does not imply some kind of dominance threat to anyone. We’re not about to see the Supreme Court packed with six more Latino females after Sotomayor.
If a white male said the same thing, while white males dominated the court, it would be taken as a justification for continuing that dominance. So that wouldn’t be acceptable, unless of course you were simply in favor of one sector of the electorate dominating the judiciary, which is naturally not going to get a lot of media sympathy or public empathy. But the same would be true if a female Latino said this if the Court were being dominated by Latino females. This whole issue is about dominance and power, not “double-standards”. There is no double-standard at the level of the underlying power dynamics here.